Raines v. State
| Decision Date | 02 July 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 37835,37835 |
| Citation | 225 So.2d 330 |
| Parties | Gene RAINES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
John D. Buchanan, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, and Joseph S. Oteri of Crane, Inker & Oteri, Boston, Mass., for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This cause is before us on appeal from the decision of the Circuit Court of Leon County upholding the validity of Chapter 398, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., on motion to dismiss and sentencing defendant, appellant herein, to six months' imprisonment and two years' probation for violation thereof. Because the trial court passed directly on the validity of a state statute, this Court has jurisdiction under Article V, Section 4, of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A.
Appellant was informed against on two counts of the sale of marijuana. He moved to dismiss the information on the grounds that Chapter 398, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., the Narcotic Drug Act, violates the Federal and State Constitutions. The parties stipulated that all transcribed evidence used in the case of Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Leis 1 would be admitted into evidence in connection with the appellant's motion to dismiss. In denying the motion to dismiss, the trial court specifically adopted by reference the thirty-one page order of Honorable G. Joseph Tauro, Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Massachusetts, in the Leis case, which order upheld the comparable Massachusetts Statutes. 2
On appeal to this Court, appellant seeks to challenge the Constitutionality of the entire narcotic drug law on the grounds that marijuana is not dangerous, a point on which he says this Court must make an independent factual determination. He contends that the narcotic drug law is irrational and unreasonable; goes beyond the proper exercise of the police power; violates equal protection of the law guarantees; and provides for penalties which are cruel and excessive punishment.
After argument and upon consideration of the briefs of the parties and study of the record, we have determined that appellant's contentions are wholly without merit. Marijuana is a harmful, mindaltering drug. It endangers the health of the user and is highly detrimental to the public welfare. This drug is within the category of injurious substances which the Legislature may regulate and prohibit in the exercise of its police power. No fundamental rights of the individual are violated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nat. Org. for Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Bell, Civ. A. No. 1897-73.
...1070 (1977); People v. McKenzie, 169 Colo. 521, 458 P.2d 232 (1969); United States v. Thorne, 325 A.2d 764 (D.C.App.1974); Raines v. State, 225 So.2d 330 (Fla.1969); Blincoe v. State, 231 Ga. 886, 204 S.E.2d 597 (1974); State v. Renfro, 56 Haw. 501, 542 P.2d 366 (1975); State v. Baker, 56 H......
-
Warren v. State
...State ex rel. Scott v. Conaty, 187 S.E.2d 119 (W.Va.Sp.Ct. of App.); Borras v. State, 229 So.2d 244 (Fla.1969); Raines v. State, 225 So.2d 330 (Fla.1969); State v. Kantner, 493 P.2d 306 Another important factor for consideration is the plainly evident absence of any evidence vis-a -vis the ......
-
People v. McCabe
...Eramdjian (S.D.Cal.1957), 155 F.Supp. 914; State v. White, 153 Mont. 193, 456 P.2d 54; Borras v. State (Fla.), 229 So.2d 244; Raines v. State (Fla.), 225 So.2d 330; People v. Stark, 157 Colo. 59, 400 P.2d 923; Spence v. Sachs, 173 Ohio St. 419, 183 N.E.2d 363; People v. Walton, 116 Ill.App.......
-
Hamilton v. State
...us. Defendant has failed to prove that the present classification of cannabis does not rest upon any reasonable basis. Cf. Raines v. State, 225 So.2d 330 (Fla.1969); Borras v. State, 229 So.2d 244 (Fla.1969). As long as there is any reasonable doubt as to the effects of cannabis which affec......